Featured Romans 9 doesn't prove Calvinism; it proves the oppositie

Once again the reference to somewhere else that "blows the biblical view out of the water" is claimed. And what is being denied? That fact God chose so that the older would serve the younger a conditional election. Folks here is Romans 9:12: it was said to her [Rebekah], “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.”

So like so many times in the past, Calvinism is based on claiming scripture does not mean what it says. I kid you not...

 

I'm convinced you don't know the meaning of the word context. I wrote a whole post showing why you were wrong about what Calvinists claim. Yet, rather than deal with what was written, the broken record player plays again and claims something I did not claim.

 

No it is you who uses context to mean Calvinist interpretation. I supported my view, all you offer is fallacious arguments against the person. Just read Romans 9:12 folks, it says they were chosen so the older would serve the younger, thus a conditional election. Since this conflicts with the false doctrines of Calvinism, the Calvinists claim somewhere else "context" makes the verse read "they were not chosen based on any characteristics." I kid you not...

 

How in the world do you get conditional election based on verse 12?

 

More twaddle but where is the beef? Nothing in the first six verses of Romans 9 says the twins were not chosen so the older would serve the younger. This is all they have, ambiguous claims of supposed support elsewhere. I kid you not...

 

If you choose the twins so that the older (Esau) will serve the younger (Jacob), that is a conditional election. The fact you claim to be unable to see this obvious fact speaks volumes.

And note folks, not one other Calvinist, is willing to admit this verse teaches a conditional election. My view is based on the interpretation rule that scripture means what it says.

 

Um, newsflash, you didn't actually say how that creates a conditional election. You just claimed it was so.

 

Your making a mountain out of a molehill.

It does not say one was chosen to do anything. What it says is as it is written one WILL serve the other.

it is prophetic utterance. The mother was told. this is what will happen. Nothing about election there at all

the first 6 verses tell us the context we should use when interpreting romans 9. It is not concerning election of salvation. It is concerning Gods choosing of the nation of Israel.

Rom 9: 6 - 6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect.

Here is the context of Romans 9. Has the word of God not come to fruition. Did God chose Israel and God failed??

 

Seeing as how nobody seeks God. He has to violate what you call free will (which is not reality) to bring His will to pass. And he does bring his will to pass in spite of our desire to not seek Him.

 

Clearly you don't understand what Unconditional Election actually means. It means that it is not based on anything WE do.

 

It wasn't the fact that the younger was the younger so he was chosen. That would be a condition. But that isn't what the passage states.

 

Obfuscation on display, pay no attention to these deniers of the obvious...

 

Folks here is Romans 9:12: it was said to her [Rebekah], “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.”

Hence a conditional election of the twins. Now we have yet another Calvinist advocate claim serving the younger "does not say one was chosen to do anything." I kid you not.

 

Now this Calvinist addresses and refutes a claim not made. I kid you not...

Folks here is Romans 9:12: it was said to her [Rebekah], “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.”

Thus a conditional election to fulfill God's purpose.

 

Here we see "Nullification Ploy" number 7. Claim because a main point in a passage is "A", then other points such as "B" can be ignored because of "context." Total fiction, nonsense, and absurdity.

Pay no attention to those who claim scripture does not mean what it says because of "context."

Romans 9 does not prove Calvinism, it proves the opposite.

 

To be fair both sides in this thread posts caricatures of the other persons stated position and then attack that caricature. Its not fair or reasonable. What we all need to do is communicate the other persons position based on their exact words and refute those exact words. Otherwise we run the risk of misrepresenting them and swinging at strawmen.

it lacks integrity to rephrase someones position in the worst possible light and then accuse them of holding to your caricature of their position.

We have all been guilty of it

 

1. I am not a Calvinist advocate (I despise and preach against fatalism)
2. If we look at the Actual words of God spoken to Rebecca, We see it is not the older kid serving the younger kid. It is the older nation who will serve the younger

Genesis 25:23
And the Lord said to her: “Two nations are in your womb, Two peoples shall be separated from your body; One people shall be stronger than the other, And the older shall serve the younger.”

3. A fatalist uses this to say that God chose one child to salvation, but chose to condemn the other child to hell. all before they were born.

its not about the two kids. Its about 2 nations (Edom and Israel)

 

Van, how was that not the claim you were making? You are making NO sense.